Split Thread: Flyboard Air - An actual "hoverboard" Is it real? / 4 reasons why Flyboard is a hoax

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

As for the judging, I think 6 people is a burden on too many people. Additionally, I don't think a moderator could be involved. I'd bet there is something in their agreement that prevents it. Again, 3 mutually agreed people, members of this forum that have participated in this thread should be adequate.

As a starting point, anyone on the last 2 pages of this thread would be acceptable to me. Particularly JayUtah, whom you seem to hold in high regard.

Date is fine - we choose 2 people each - nearer the date - and one we both agree on making it 5.
We can lock in JayUtah as the deciding mutual voter right now if he is happy to play.

As for the 2 each we get to choose, thy have to be people who have been on this thread since before today ( including the part of the thread that has been butchered and is still in the science sub forum)

If you really want to put your money in now you can - but that is a crap interest rate - even if you win. i suggest you just match my $30 and when/if you lose, you pay on the balance on that day,

DRAW - money goes to charity. You choose the charity.

Instruct me where to send the $30 an i will deposit within the next 24 hrs

Date is fine - we choose 2 people each - nearer the date - and one we both agree on making it 5.
We can lock in JayUtah as the deciding mutual voter right now if he is happy to play.

As for the 2 each we get to choose, thy have to be people who have been on this thread since before today ( including the part of the thread that has been butchered and is still in the science sub forum)

If you really want to put your money in now you can - but that is a crap interest rate - even if you win. i suggest you just match my $30 and when/if you lose, you pay on the balance on that day,

DRAW - money goes to charity. You chose the charity.

To get this done, I agree.

I believe the judges are problematic, and would seek to have everything settled up front, so there is one decision to make at the end.

__________________- "Who is the Greater Fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the Fool?" [Various; Uknown]- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']

Thus is why I think this is doomed (and I agree JayUtah, which is why any funds in my direction go to charity).

Esspee, we need this to be cut & dried. In Apr 2017 if no hoax revelations are in play, your $30 goes to charity. Otherwise, I send a $600 payment in whatever direction you choose. No agreement = no play / no pay.

__________________- "Who is the Greater Fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the Fool?" [Various; Uknown]- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']

Esspee, in the wagering sidebar you seem to have neglected the posts quoted below. As a thread follower since page 1, I'm interested in seeing you address these points, if you can. To my previously undecided mind, they rather handily obliterate your position. Thanks.

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

Not only would all the video necessarily be fake, but anyone at any of the locales it was demonstrated would have to be kept from such reporting, or the internet would have to prevent views.

The conspiracy is getting larger and larger.

What is the motivation for all these people and companies to forward the conspiracy? Certainly there isn't enough money that can result from this scam to spread around. How many reputations will be destroyed to give Franky a temporary ego boost?

Not a single piece of contrary evidence has been revealed, no matter how tentative.

The breadth and scope of this hoax are beyond reason, not that any of this will sway you.

Extensive. Credits include Hawking's The Fate of the Universe, The Core (with apologies to the geology community), and a Spider-Man promo shot in my city. All these used combinations of purely digital effects and digital effects combined with live-action elements.

Of course, as with any other evidence. A witness statement, for example, can be probative even though it is possible that the witness may be lying. If the evidence is to be impeached with an affirmative claim that the witness is lying, proof of the actuality of the lie must be produced, not just the abstract statement that it's not impossible he is lying.

Similarly photographic evidence purporting to be of an event can be considered evidence of the authenticity of the event. If that evidence is to be impeached with an affirmative claim that it was fabricated or altered, then the putative impeacher bears the burden to show evidence of fabrication or alteration, not merely the abstract statement that it's not impossible to fake evidence.

Conspiracy theorists never seem to understand how evidence actually works.

Do you have any evidence to support that belief?

But we've dealt with that. Your argument thus far has simply been the impotent statement that it could be faked. You provide no credible evidence that it was. The argument you do provide in favor of fakery is simply that it fails to meet your uninformed expectations for what real footage should look like. Further, your speculation regarding how it may have been faked runs afoul of your ignorance of the practical limitations in video production. Several examples of this have been mentioned to you, but you seem unimpressed.

This sounds like you're arguing that the footage must be faked because the Flyboard Air itself is a fake. That's as illogical and irrational as an argument can possibly get. That's like claiming alibi evidence must be fake because you have concluded the defendant is guilty.

This sort of blatantly biased proposition is why no one takes you seriously.

Straw man. No one is claiming you are delusional. They are simply claiming your belief lacks a rational basis. Attempting to shame critics away from questioning your claims -- such as by amplifying the social consequence of their criticism -- is, as you can imagine, a play out of the nut-job playbook. You make it sound as if your critics are accusing you of some sort of mental disorder so that they seem mean-spirited for doing so. You really are so very predictable.

__________________"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

Esspee, in the wagering sidebar you seem to have neglected the posts quoted below. As a thread follower since page 1, I'm interested in seeing you address these points, if you can. To my previously undecided mind, they rather handily obliterate your position. Thanks.

Those are massively framed arguments. IN some cases answering a framed question is accepting a trojan horse within it, or assumptions.

People like to put words into my mouth in this thread. Often.

If you or anyone else has a question - or questions - lay them out simply, and i will answer them.

Please describe for us what plausible course of events you would accept as suitable evidence. For instance, Franky flying to your house and letting your fly around on the flyboard air is implausible, so isn't a suitable response.

So you're simply going to pick and choose which critics you respond to? Sounds like you're just making extremely feeble excuses for ignoring questions you can't answer.

Example of a framed argument ( apologies if my knowledge of debate and terminology is lacking)

"What is the motivation for all these people and companies to forward the conspiracy? Certainly there isn't enough money that can result from this scam to spread around. How many reputations will be destroyed to give Franky a temporary ego boost?"

Responding to this is to accept the idea that lots of people and companies must be in on.
Or that reputations will be lost.

WHy do lots of people have to be involved? I have never said lots of people are.
Why would reputations be lost?

I didn't ask for an example of a framed argument. I asked in what way my argument was framed. My previous post was put to you by someone else who asked you to address it. You declined to do so, citing "framed argument" as the grounds. You may have been referring to The Greater Fool's post, in which case you can address my post separately.

Quote:

( apologies if my knowledge of debate and terminology is lacking)

The concept you're groping for is the Complex Question. That's the notion that a hidden premise must be accepted before the question can be discussed at all. The prosaic example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Quote:

WHy do lots of people have to be involved? I have never said lots of people are.

If The Greater Fool wants to press you to answer his post, let him. I am pressing you to answer mine, which was largely a point-by-point response to your post that preceded it.

But as along as that point is raised, your lack of experience in video production undermines your opinion that such productions as you envision to be fake could be undertaken without substantial notice. It doesn't matter whether you say lots of people are involved. The question is how many people would need to be involved in order to do what you allege has been done, and then subsequently whether that number of people could be kept silent for long enough. A cogent theory must account for such holes.

The scope and scale of an alleged hoax is a factor. If the nature of the artifact suggests that faking it would require resources of a considerable scope, it becomes less likely such fakery could be accomplished without leaving evidence.

I didn't ask for an example of a framed argument. I asked in what way my argument was framed. My previous post was put to you by someone else who asked you to address it. You declined to do so, citing "framed argument" as the grounds. You may have been referring to The Greater Fool's post, in which case you can address my post separately.

The concept you're groping for is the Complex Question. That's the notion that a hidden premise must be accepted before the question can be discussed at all. The prosaic example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

If The Greater Fool wants to press you to answer his post, let him. I am pressing you to answer mine, which was largely a point-by-point response to your post that preceded it.

But as along as that point is raised, your lack of experience in video production undermines your opinion that such productions as you envision to be fake could be undertaken without substantial notice. It doesn't matter whether you say lots of people are involved. The question is how many people would need to be involved in order to do what you allege has been done, and then subsequently whether that number of people could be kept silent for long enough. A cogent theory must account for such holes.

The scope and scale of an alleged hoax is a factor. If the nature of the artifact suggests that faking it would require resources of a considerable scope, it becomes less likely such fakery could be accomplished without leaving evidence.

Okay - it was kind of hard to pull out the questions from that long 'COMPLEX' post of yours earlier

I am happy to respond to your questions or points. But can you please put them a little more clearly and simply and maybe in some kind of order.

If i do not fully understand the question or where the question or point even is - then i simply can not respond

These are direct responses to points you raised. In some of my responses I asked you questions to which I expect answers. If you are unable to understand the post, I suggest you take a remedial English class.

When i watch a flyboard video it looks like this to me.
Now imagine everyone - even people smarter, more experienced than yourself telling you that you are mistaken, and taht the hippo is real. The hippo is real and you are just being an idiot.
Have them show you lots of evidence that it is a real hippo.
Beat you in debates showing it is real.
Have an expert in film and video effects tell you it is real.

Now when you look at the video again will teh hippo still be clearly fake?
WHo will you trust ?- everyone elses perception or your own perception?

Will you still see a fake hippo or a real one?

If you still saw a fake one, clear as day, would you just keep quiet instead , keep it to yourself?

I still see a fake flyboard, clear as day

Now I will try to respond to your points as best i can.

If you are saying that I am saying the footage is fake because the flyboard is fake - then yes I am. Is that crazy? By itself in isolation - yes.

However that point can not be taken in isolation... that is the difference. i am looking at the whole picture here.

NOTHING rings true with this. Nothing. Everything is far fetched.
Not some things- everything.
A few far fethced things? Okay i could buy it. But everything?

IMO that is the hall mark of a con.

The footage, the claims, the IMSC, the press releases, the strange carpet bombing of google (that i have never come across before - nor a friend i know who works in marketing) . Just everything about it (As i perceive it) is exceptionally unlikely.

Now you say all of this counts for nothing - because I am not an expert in all fields. And these 'far fetched odd details' are just things not turning out how i would assume they would. And these wrongful assumptions are based on my lack of experience and my ignorance.

You are correct in some ways for sure. It does count for nothing if I am trying to convince others.
BUt i am here to confirm for myself it is real or not. There is a difference.

I have never in my life come across a story with so much oddness to it in every single aspect and detail. BUt no one was talking about it online except for 3 youtubers, and one had to remove his videos due to hassle.

So i started this thread - made these videos, and all of it is to provide a place where people who see this the way i do can come and speak about it.

The bonus is i also get to discuss things with people like yourself, and bounce ideas around.

If it is real - it will be someone like yourself who likely finally convinces me.

p.s as you can see - not many people who see it like i do have come to this threead to comment. But i can assure you there are people out there...lurking..who see it just like me.

Example of a framed argument ( apologies if my knowledge of debate and terminology is lacking)

"What is the motivation for all these people and companies to forward the conspiracy? Certainly there isn't enough money that can result from this scam to spread around. How many reputations will be destroyed to give Franky a temporary ego boost?"

Responding to this is to accept the idea that lots of people and companies must be in on.
Or that reputations will be lost.

Yes, and one goes with the other.

Originally Posted by esspee

Why do lots of people have to be involved? I have never said lots of people are.

Thousands of people have seen it fly.

You have seen them in the videos. Allegations that the crowds have been added in or that the Flyboard has been added in to existing crowds at another event simply wont wash. Flyboard Air has been demonstrated at locations where there were known to be thousands of people, at that place and time. The dates of these public demonstrations are well documented, with many of them announced in advance.

If the Flyboard Air really is a hoax, then thousands of people (all witnesses) must either be involved, or at the very least, must be complicit in keeping silent about it.

Originally Posted by esspee

Why would reputations be lost?

Because companies that deal with or sell to the public rely on, and need to engender, the trust of their customers or clients. That trust comes alongside business goodwill and reputation for honesty and integrity.

If a company were to be involved with hoaxing the public on a scale like this, what they are effectively doing is lying to their customers. If you tell your customers lies, they will stop trusting you, and your reputation will be flushed around the u-bend.

__________________► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

If the Flyboard videos look as fake to you as that awfully done hippo scene, then you have a serious problem with your eyesight. A very serious problem!

__________________► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

It doesn't matter. Every conspiracy theorist soothes his ego by applying the firm belief that there are armies of silent supporters and admirers out there. It's one of more common recoveries from an inability to mount a truly convincing argument.

It doesn't matter. Every conspiracy theorist soothes his ego by applying the firm belief that there are armies of silent supporters and admirers out there. It's one of more common recoveries from an inability to mount a truly convincing argument.

Not admirers.

People who share the belief that it is most likely fake.

Big difference.

Going by comments on my youtube videos, comments on flyboard videos on youtube and comments and online conversations elsewhere, I can confirm there are a at least a handful of people who are not silent and share my belief that it is a hoax. A tiny minority, but a growing one.

So i do not think it is conspiracy theorist-like or 'vain' to assume that there is also small handful of people who agree that it is likely a hoax, watch the videos, or have read the thread, but just do not bother to comment. There are always more readers and watchers and viewers than posters and commenters.

I have no interest in lengthy expressions of your intuitive beliefs. I'm only interested in what you can prove according to evidence.

Quote:

\i am looking at the whole picture here.

Nonsense. Your evaluation of new evidence is very clearly and explicitly dependent on whether it agrees with your predetermined belief. There is no "big picture" evaluation happening.

I asked you if you had evidence for you belief. You respond:

Quote:

NOTHING rings true with this.

You seem unable to present any argument that isn't simply an expression of your intuitive belief, couched in vague, handwaving terms.

Quote:

A few far fethced things? Okay i could buy it. But everything?

Meaningless hyperbole. Uninformed intuition does not acquire evidentiary value by applying a whole lot more of it.

Quote:

Now you say all of this counts for nothing - because I am not an expert in all fields.

I'm saying appealing to your own judgment has no evidentiary value if you cannot show that judgment to be based on experience and knowledge. You present the reader with a series of purported inconsistencies and anomalies, all measured against your expectations. You give the reader a choice: either a massive hoax has been perpetrated or you don't know what you're talking about. Guess which one is the easiest explanation to believe? Guess which one is best supported by evidence?

"Anomaly hunting" is one of the better known tropes in conspiracism.

Quote:

You are correct in some ways for sure. It does count for nothing if I am trying to convince others.
BUt i am here to confirm for myself it is real or not. There is a difference.

Asked and answered. Your behavior is wholly inconsistent with someone trying to find the truth, whatever it may be. As you can guess, you newfound disinterest in proving your point follows the nut-job playbook. You didn't address the posts from earlier in the thread where you were quite adamant about your intent to prove a hoax. Nor would the opinions of lurkers be relevant unless you felt you needed their votes to win something.

So we can knock off the charade that you're "just asking questions." You state a belief that the evidence of the Flyboard Air is hoaxed, but you still -- after all this -- have no stronger argument than the belief itself. You may be half correct that you're not here to prove a hoax, in the sense that I doubt you have any serious delusions about convincing any of your critics. But as I said before, it fits the pattern if you're here to present your case and pretend that it has survived a critical analysis. If, mentally speaking, you have to back away from your actual claims and pretend you never intended them seriously, in order to preserve the illusion of having passed the test, then that too would be typical.

None at all. If you have to mentally conjure up a phantom army whose sole job is to agree with you, then that is what satisfies the approval you seek.

Quote:

There are always more readers and watchers and viewers than posters and commenters.

Perhaps one of our members will direct you to one of the many threads (mostly in the 9/11 section) where a conspiracy theorists has hypothesized as you have that lurkers are secretly approving. What frequently follows is a deluge of delurking to excoriate the conspiracy theorist. I have yet to see a single example in this forum where lurkers support the conspiracy.

It's part of the inevitable shift from trying to prove something to having failed to do it but finding a reason why that's okay. "The lurkers love me" is the classic argument from silence. No one can ever prove the disposition of people who read but don't post, or even their actual existence. This places the point firmly in the realm of ambiguity. The conspiracist finds solace in the unrebuttable belief that while he may not have convinced any of the people he knows about, there may be legions of believers he doesn't know about.

I can confirm there are a at least a handful of people who are not silent and share my belief that it is a hoax. A tiny minority, but a growing one.

Another cliché straight from the conspiracy theory playbook.

Every fringe belief whether it's 9/11 truthers, ufologists, anti-relativity cranks, young earth creationists, etc. seems to have this idea that there's an ever growing army of people siding with their cause.

You have seen them in the videos. Allegations that the crowds have been added in or that the Flyboard has been added in to existing crowds at another event simply wont wash. Flyboard Air has been demonstrated at locations where there were known to be thousands of people, at that place and time. The dates of these public demonstrations are well documented, with many of them announced in advance.

If the Flyboard Air really is a hoax, then thousands of people (all witnesses) must either be involved, or at the very least, must be complicit in keeping silent about it.

Yup, this is the number one thing. esspee has been addressing tiny stuff by comparison.

__________________The woods are lovely, dark and deep
but i have promises to keep
and lines to code before I sleep
And lines to code before I sleep

You have seen them in the videos. Allegations that the crowds have been added in or that the Flyboard has been added in to existing crowds at another event simply wont wash. Flyboard Air has been demonstrated at locations where there were known to be thousands of people, at that place and time. The dates of these public demonstrations are well documented, with many of them announced in advance.

If the Flyboard Air really is a hoax, then thousands of people (all witnesses) must either be involved, or at the very least, must be complicit in keeping silent about it.

Esspee, the actual readers of this thread cannot help but notice that, yet again, you've neglected to address the most damning points against your position in favor of a largely irrelevant sidebar debate, in this case the presence of silent lurkers who support your position.

Let's allow for the sake of discussion that many such lurkers exist. With that established, will you be so kind as to address smartcooky's points about thousands of witnesses to a widely advertised event? Thanks.

__________________"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix

Esspee, the actual readers of this thread cannot help but notice that, yet again, you've neglected to address the most damning points against your position in favor of a largely irrelevant sidebar debate, in this case the presence of silent lurkers who support your position.

Let's allow for the sake of discussion that many such lurkers exist. With that established, will you be so kind as to address smartcooky's points about thousands of witnesses to a widely advertised event? Thanks.

Watch the link below.

This clearly happened.
You can clearly see the thousands of people that witnessed this event.

Maybe even tens of Thousands!

If you are still doubting the authenticity of the event, then explain to me how half of Manhattan was bribed to keep quiet?

Do you have any idea how impossible it would be to keep this quiet?

I think you need to take a break...you've clearly become a 'conspiracy theorist'.
You're logic chip is severely malfunctioning.

You're dodging (again) with a very poor attempt at humour. That is another tactic straight from the CT nutter playbook

Its not funny, and it won't wash

Debate honestly - address the questions or admit you are wrong.

__________________► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

You're dodging (again) with a very poor attempt at humour. That is another tactic straight from the CT nutter playbook

Its not funny, and it won't wash

Debate honestly - address the questions or admit you are wrong.

There are not thousands of witnesses. You can not prove that. I have yet to find ONE confirmed witness nit involved with jetsking or flyboarding.. Yet you have many thousands of witnesses that you believe exist.

Look at the 'video' of the Barcelona flight. Look at all of the people within that video videoing from within the buildings. Or at least taking photos. You can see them. That is the only flight where there simply would have to be lots of witnesses if real.

Where is their footage? Why was in not covered by local news?

Why come to the USA with a prototype and do just two flights, and both at a lake in the middle of nowhere. Why not somewhere populated and busy, why not a tour, why no coverage? Why not at least invite the press?

I was told here or on youtube that many thousands had witnessed the flight in Florida. I have not seen thousands in any of the videos i saw. I have been told by people that they saw it. None of them respond when asked for details. None have photo or video themselves. Even the ones that say they do - they refuse to share them with me, or provide a link to them.

This flight in florida - the press were not invited. Why?
The only TV mention was on fox4 and the footage used was supplied to them one day after the event by Zapata Racing team, and this is according to fox4 themselves.

Speaking of the many thousands of witnesses. Here is a video that two of 3 only self confirmed witnesses has taken so far.